I thought it was exceedingly difficult to the point of bordering on being unreasonable. A lot of the answer choices seemed like they could have gone either way and I didn't think doing the practice questions helped that much. Thoughts?

Oh man, I 100% agree with you. It was WAY harder than the BarBri simulated MBE, and I scored very high on the simulated MBE. However, I thought the first half of the first 100 questions were the hardest (and most people I talked to agreed with me), but after that, it got noticeably easier. Maybe they just put the more difficult questions in the beginning to "throw us off," as it were. All I can say is, thank GOODNESS that the MBE is worth only 1/3rd of the grade in Nevada, and there is no set score you have to get either...

I focused mostly on the Conviser mini-review and the lecture handouts. It's funny, I knew some of the material pretty well, as far as what was in those books. But in numerous cases while I was studying, questions popped up in my mind as to gaps in the material, or areas where it seemed ambiguous. And it turned out that that's a lot of what was tested on the MBE. It certainly seemed like the MBE question creators were aware of the Barbri material and wrote questions that were just beyond the scope of that material. So I'd advise future bar exam takers to actually contact the professors if you have a question!

For example, there was a criminal law question (I may not remember it 100% correctly) that concerned what crimes a Defendant could be found guilty of. After obtaining equipment for the purpose of committing the crime, Defendant changed his mind and attempted to talk his co-conspirators out of the crime. However, the other participants committed the crime anyway, using the equipment he procured.

Of course he's guilty of conspiracy, and I'm not sure whether that was relevant in the answer choices. But was his attempt to talk the other particpants out of committing the crime enough to prevent culpability for the committed offense? Was he required to do more, such as go to the police and actually prevent the crime?

I'm sure everyone thinks that was the easiest question on the exam, but to me it's an example of a lack of clarity in the Barbri materials.

As an aside, what was up with the question where there was a purchase-money mortgage by a third-party bank and the seller's loan made to finance the purchase of the property that was secured by a note but no mortgage. Which has priority after foreclosure?

I focused mostly on the Conviser mini-review and the lecture handouts. It's funny, I knew some of the material pretty well, as far as what was in those books. But in numerous cases while I was studying, questions popped up in my mind as to gaps in the material, or areas where it seemed ambiguous. And it turned out that that's a lot of what was tested on the MBE. It certainly seemed like the MBE question creators were aware of the Barbri material and wrote questions that were just beyond the scope of that material. So I'd advise future bar exam takers to actually contact the professors if you have a question!

For example, there was a criminal law question (I may not remember it 100% correctly) that concerned what crimes a Defendant could be found guilty of. After obtaining equipment for the purpose of committing the crime, Defendant changed his mind and attempted to talk his co-conspirators out of the crime. However, the other participants committed the crime anyway, using the equipment he procured.

Of course he's guilty of conspiracy, and I'm not sure whether that was relevant in the answer choices. But was his attempt to talk the other particpants out of committing the crime enough to prevent culpability for the committed offense? Was he required to do more, such as go to the police and actually prevent the crime?

I'm sure everyone thinks that was the easiest question on the exam, but to me it's an example of a lack of clarity in the Barbri materials.

As an aside, what was up with the question where there was a purchase-money mortgage by a third-party bank and the seller's loan made to finance the purchase of the property that was secured by a note but no mortgage. Which has priority after foreclosure?

I also thought that conspiracy question was difficult. I ultimately decided that he effectively withdrew, since he not only told the co-conspirators that he wanted out, but he vehemently tried to talk them out of it. Talking to the police is just one way that you can terminate culpability for the committed crime, but it's not the sole way to withdraw.

And the PMSI question about the mortgages, usually a PMSI from the seller always takes priority over a PMSI from a third-party lender, but I don't remember what answer I put down for that one...

I think effective withdrawal requires you to try to get tools or equipment back if you provided it for the crime. But maybe I'm completely making that rule up in order to match up with the answer I chose.

And the PMSI seller takes priority over PMSI lender; I'm pretty sure there was a choice with that result.

I focused mostly on the Conviser mini-review and the lecture handouts. It's funny, I knew some of the material pretty well, as far as what was in those books. But in numerous cases while I was studying, questions popped up in my mind as to gaps in the material, or areas where it seemed ambiguous. And it turned out that that's a lot of what was tested on the MBE. It certainly seemed like the MBE question creators were aware of the Barbri material and wrote questions that were just beyond the scope of that material. So I'd advise future bar exam takers to actually contact the professors if you have a question!

For example, there was a criminal law question (I may not remember it 100% correctly) that concerned what crimes a Defendant could be found guilty of. After obtaining equipment for the purpose of committing the crime, Defendant changed his mind and attempted to talk his co-conspirators out of the crime. However, the other participants committed the crime anyway, using the equipment he procured.

Of course he's guilty of conspiracy, and I'm not sure whether that was relevant in the answer choices. But was his attempt to talk the other particpants out of committing the crime enough to prevent culpability for the committed offense? Was he required to do more, such as go to the police and actually prevent the crime?

I'm sure everyone thinks that was the easiest question on the exam, but to me it's an example of a lack of clarity in the Barbri materials.

As an aside, what was up with the question where there was a purchase-money mortgage by a third-party bank and the seller's loan made to finance the purchase of the property that was secured by a note but no mortgage. Which has priority after foreclosure?

As to that first question lol the one about conspiracy. I thought the fact that he supplied the equipment which made the very crime possible made withdrawal almost impossible unless he neutralized and the only way to neutralize in that situation would be to get the equipment back or call the police if they refused when you asked or tried to get it back. I always thought that withdrawal, notice of withdrawal, and neutralization was necessary. I don't know, it's just one question haha.

Yeah that MBE was tough. Everyone was dismayed, I don't think I have met one person who has said they know they passed that thing, it was tough. But good luck to everyone!

I looked at my BarBri materials re: withdrawal, and nowhere did it say that neutralizing assistance means to take back provided equipment. All it said was that you have to do more than just announce your withdrawal. As for calling the police, again the book said nothing about that being a requisite to withdrawal - it said simply something like "one may ALSO contact the authorities." Thus, the way I interpreted the question, since he did more than just announce his withdrawal (he tried to talk them out of it, too), I thought that was enough for withdrawal from the crime that was eventually committed. Unfortunately, the materials don't seem to provide the answer to that question, and I also think that no amount of studying could have prepared me for the first half of the MBE (the 2nd half I found to be much easier and I walked out of the exam room 30 minutes early).

The PM session was the only time I've ever finished early doing MBE questions, and I finished about 20 minutes early.

There were a fair amount of questions that I was unsure about, but that was true with all my practice tests as well. Overall I was happy with it because it seemed that the questions were more to the point than my practice questions, and they were shorter on average as well. I could always identify what they were getting at, so that makes it easy either way; either you know the law or you don't.

VA doesn't even release the MBE scores if you pass. Hopefully I'll pass and thus never know how I did on the MBE.